Two Simple Rules

One of the (few) articles of faith of those calling themselves “progressives”
is that the changes they seek to impose are inevitable and irreversible, and
that opposition to them is but a futile attempt to “turn back the clock.” Yet
more often than not, this is precisely what their own actions amount to, and
the brave new future they claim to seek looks more like the not-so-glorious
past. For example, the Atlantic Empire’s efforts in the Balkans – promoted
repeatedly as the model of successful intervention – have focused on sending
the region back
to 1913, via the 1990s.

This isn’t solely a “liberal” fixation, either. Recall that Bush II adopted
the Democrats’ Balkans agenda in
his second term, and presided over the “Kosovian” declaration of independence
in 2008. Then again, he was about as “conservative” as Brezhnev.
In any case, by the time of the Clinton
Restoration, a fully bipartisan consensus on the Balkans was firmly in place.

This consensus is founded on myths, idols, fetishes
and fantasies, and is thus entirely impervious to principle, argument or
actual reality – so long as the Imperial policymakers believe they create
their own reality through sheer willpower, anyway.

Two Simple Rules

At first glance, the Balkans mythology defies explanation. Empire’s actions
appear entirely arbitrary, completely devoid of any
actual principle except power. The obsession with Bosnia can be partly explained
by a conjured narrative
of white-knighting, but that doesn’t help much to explain Kosovo. And while
Doug
Bandow is correct to offer “the Serbs always lose” as a general rule, that’s
not quite the whole picture either.

Long-time Balkans observer, James
George Jatras recently offered a solution to the apparent enigma. Namely,
there are two rules at work:

Rule One: The Serbs are always wrong, and all claims and interests
they might have must be thwarted.

Rule Two: Muslims are always right, and all claims and interests
they might have must be facilitated.

The Corollary: Deriving from the two rules, the claims and interests
of non-Serbs, non-Muslims – notably Croats – are dependent on their relationship
to Serbs or Muslims respectively. So Croats are right when in conflict with
Serbs (who are always wrong), for example in the former Krajina; but Croats
are wrong when in conflict with Muslims (who are always right), for example
on the former Herceg-Bosna.

The Sandbox State

Since Jatras bases his theory not on wishful thinking but on empirical evidence
and observation, it isn’t too difficult to test it. Consider the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
a country with a fundamental
problem exacerbated, rather than resolved, by European or American intervention.

Having supported Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to reject a power-sharing
agreement in
1992 and unilaterally declare independence – which set off the civil war
– Washington intervened directly in 1994, forcing
the Muslims and Croats into an alliance of convenience against the Serbs, in
order to bring about the Dayton
Peace. Thus was born the “Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

Nineteen years later, Washington is meddling
again, this time to “reform” the Federation. Though the Serbs have been
blamed for all of Bosnia’s ills over the years, even the Empire can’t ignore
the structural failings of its client statelet any longer. However, the proposed
changes are not going to improve the lot of the increasingly marginalized Croats,
while they won’t go far enough to please the Muslims. It appears that no one
in Washington has learned the lesson
of 2006, when Muslim politicians torpedoed the U.S.-proposed constitutional
reform. Instead, rumors suggest the Empire is seeking
to oust the Bosnian Serb leadership in a “color revolution.”

Other evidence suggests Jatras is correct as well. Consider the disparate
treatment of Croat officers by the Hague Inquisition: acquitted
so long as their victims were Serbs, yet convicted harshly whenever their victims
were Muslim.

Last, but not least, the census in Bosnia has been repeatedly
delayed due to Muslim concerns, but the blame is always carefully placed
on abstractions like “ethnic divisions.”

Marching Towards Infamy

Another example was on display last week, following a concert at the UN organized
by the current General Assembly chairman, former Serbian FM Vuk Jeremic. The
concert’s finale featured a choir singing the “Drina March,” a WW1 tune celebrating
a Serb victory over
the invading Austro-Hungarian army in 1914.

Bosnian Muslim grievance groups in the U.S. and Canada immediately sent
angry notes to the UN, denouncing the march as “nationalist” and deeming
it an “insult to victims of genocide” (i.e. themselves). The UN spokesman expressed
regret if anyone got offended – in diplomatic terms very much a non-apology
– but that’s not how the mainstream Western press reported
it. Indeed, they almost competed who would libel the tune more, some going
so far as to call it “genocide
song“. Not surprisingly, the prize went to the New York Times, whose
reporter actually
described the 1914 battle of Cer as "infamous."

Because the Serbs are always wrong and the Muslims are always right, we now
get Great War revisionism
on top of the regular distortions about the Balkans. And that particular distortion
trend is just getting
started…

Entrapment

Jatras’s theory also helps explain Kosovo. Occupied by the overwhelmingly Muslim
Albanians – whose Islam is mentioned only
when convenient and downplayed at other times – this Serbian province has
enjoyed unqualified support of Washington from the 1996 establishment of the
terrorist “liberation army”, through the 1999
war to seize it from Serbia, the anti-Serb pogroms
that followed, up to and beyond the 2008 declaration of independence.

Currently the Empire is pushing its client regime in Belgrade to recognize
the occupied province as a separate state – since Washington considers “Kosovian”
independence irreversible and unquestionable.
The government has been dutifully
capitulating, serving the Empire even when it pretended to pursue national
interests. For example, when it finally dismantled the monument to Albanian
terrorists in southern Serbia, it did so in a manner that bolstered
Albanian claims. Predictably, the Western media focused
on Albanian protests, while completely ignoring the ensuing
destruction of Serb cemeteries.

Meanwhile, the blundering Serbian PM Ivica Dacic took a break from appeasing
“Kosovian” leader Hashim Thaci to give a TV interview, which turned out to be
an
elaborate prank: the interviewer replayed the notorious scene from “Basic
Instinct“, flashing the hapless Prime Minister. The video
of his continued rambling through a lecherous smirk quickly went viral, though
the episode itself was banned. Yet because the Serbian media have been so thoroughly
corrupted, the prank was more likely a simple act of nihilism than an act of
resistance to the PM’s policy of treason.

Serbia, Unchained?

That it is treason, however, is becoming increasingly evident to the
Serbian public, which is showing signs of slipping the Empire’s media
chains. The mainstream media are reacting to criticism with shrill personal
denunciations of critics, manufacturing scandals, and spinning fantasies about
the EU and a better future just around the corner, but they are fooling fewer
people each day.

Once enough people realize that submitting to the Empire will not solve their
problems, only make them worse, it won’t take much to make the whole edifice
of manufactured consent collapse. And without it, Empire’s conjured Balkans
narrative will be what it always was: mere wishful thinking.

Author: Nebojsa Malic

Nebojsa Malic left his home in Bosnia after the Dayton Accords and currently resides in the United States. During the Bosnian War he had exposure to diplomatic and media affairs in Sarajevo. As a historian who specializes in international relations and the Balkans, Malic has written numerous essays on the Kosovo War, Bosnia, and Serbian politics. His exclusive column for Antiwar.com debuted in November 2000.